A note about user restores (users restoring their backups)

[anti-ts]

Since now we are all waiting the new skin etc. I'm writing a note about "user restore" of a user backup.
From my experience many not so power users, are confused about something.

For example I will use "public_html/" files:
When a user selects a backup to restore, they expect all public_html/ to be restored at the state it was exactly at the backup date. It is like they expect a snapshot of public_html/ to be restored.
They do not expect to have there all files that were added after the backup date in any case.

To make it more clear:
* What DA user restore does: "extract files from backup into public_html/ - adding or overwriting files there"
* What many users expects is: "empty public_html/ first and then extract the backup into public_html/"


What would make this clearer?
Maybe to add an extra checkbox in "Restore Options" at "Website Data" saying something like:
"Empty domains directories before restore"

 

[sysdev]

Although it sounds logical, let's not do that just in case your backup was corrupted or it was just a partial backup

Deleting your current public_html directory should stay a manual action (imho) but I agree, restoring a website and still having your old crap (faulty plugins, hacked scripts etc) is not gonna help a user very much. Maybe moving the current files which are not available in the backup to another directory would be a bit safer.

 

[anti-ts]

This checkbox might not be checked by default.

A checkbox check is a manual action (IMHO) by the user side...

Maybe an extra alert can be set on checking, like:
"WARNING: All existing Website Data will be removed, before restoring your backup. Make sure your backup is complete. Are you sure you want to continue?".

sysdev: Of course what you suggest is the safest, though I'm worried about required disk space on that scenario.

 

[Richard G]

This might be a good point for the suggestions section.
Even I also thought a restore would clear and/or overwrite current files and remove old ones.
So moving old stuff to a /old directory or someting would be a good choice.

 

[zEitEr]

Hello,

Good point. The thread was moved to Feedback & Feature Requests subforum.

 

[dmacleo]

This might be a good point for the suggestions section.
Even I also thought a restore would clear and/or overwrite current files and remove old ones.
So moving old stuff to a /old directory or someting would be a good choice.

this....very interesting idea.
I have seen where a restore did not over write "bad" data and the fix was to delete file then re-run restore.
I would suspect Richards idea about a /old (or even a /BAK) directory would alleviate that issue as well as provide a manner to access the data that was "bad" in case something is needed.